For example one can easily understand how the curvature in space-time can be the causality of gravitational forces in terms of the physical image of a marble on a curved surface.  The marble follows a circular pattern around the deformity in the surface of the diaphragm. Similarly planets revolve around the sun because they follow a curved path in the deformed “surface” of space-time.

However the same cannot be said for the energy distribution within the atom because quantum mechanics defines it in terms of a non-deterministic probability function. This deeply trouble Einstein because he felt that the laws governing the entire universe must deterministic including those of the atom.  He spent the next few years attempt to define physical model of why energy levels of atoms behave the way they do. However by 1926 the problem of chance remained and Einstein became increasingly alienated from the developments in quantum theory; he insisted that “God does not play dice,” and thus there is no room for fundamental randomness in physical theory.

As mentioned earlier Einstein believed that a viable theory of nature should be base on determinism which should be describable by a physical image.

One reason for his inability to create a physical image of the quantum energy distribution in an atom may have been because he chose to define it in terms of time or space-time instead of its spatial properties.  In other words because the distribution of energy in an atom is related to its spatial not its time characteristics it may have been easier to do if he had define energy in terms of its spatial instead of time properties.

However he gave us the ability to do this when he defined the geometric properties of a space-time universe in terms of  the constant velocity of light because that allows one to redefine a unit of time he associated with energy in his space-time universe to unit of space in only four *spatial* dimensions. 

In other words by defining the geometric properties of a space-time universe in terms of the constant velocity of light he provided a qualitative and quantitative means of redefining the time related properties of energy in his space-time universe to it spatial properties in a universe consisting of only four *spatial* dimensions.

This would have allowed him to describe a physical image for why the energy levels of Principal Quantum number (n), the Angular Momentum “â„“” (l), Magnetic (m) and Spin Quantum Number (+1/2 and -1/2) are what they are. 

For example in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 it was shown one can derive the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass by extrapolating the physical image of resonance in a three-dimensional environment to a matter wave moving on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical Newtonian environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would occur in one consisting of four spatial dimensions

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold (the substance) the ability to oscillate spatially with respect to it thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.

These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital. This would force the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

Therefore, these oscillations on a “surface” of three-dimensional space, would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or “structure” in space.

Observations of a three-dimensional environment show the energy associated with resonant system can only take on the incremental or discreet values associated with a fundamental or a harmonic of the fundamental frequency of its environment.

Similarly the energy associated with resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions could only take on the incremental or discreet values associated a fundamental or a harmonic of the fundamental frequency of its environment.

These resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions are responsible for the incremental or discreet energy associated with quantum mechanical systems.

Additionally this also allows one to derive the physical boundaries of a particle in terms of the geometric properties of four *spatial* dimensions.

For example in classical physics, a point on the two-dimensional surface of paper is confined to that surface.  However, that surface can oscillate up or down with respect to three-dimensional space. 

Similarly an object occupying a volume of three-dimensional space would be confined to it however, it could, similar to the surface of the paper oscillate “up” or “down” with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

The confinement of the “upward” and “downward” oscillations of a three-dimension volume with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension which always must occur, as was shown in the article “The observer effect in quantum mechanics a classical explanation” Sept. 1, 2015 when an observation is made is what defines the spatial boundaries of the resonant system associated with the particle component of its wave properties in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?“

However the fact that one can derive the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass by extrapolating the resonant properties of a wave in three-dimensional environment to a fourth *spatial* dimension means that one should be able to derive a physical image of the four quantum numbers that define the physical properties of the atomic orbitals in those same terms.

In other words one should be able to define a physical reasons in terms of the classical physics why the first the Principal Quantum number is designated by the letter “n”, the second or Angular Momentum by the letter “â„“” the third or Magnetic by the letter “m” and the last is the Spin or “s” Quantum Number are what they are.

In three-dimensional space the frequency or energy of a resonant system is defined by the vibrating medium and the boundaries of its environment.

For example the resonant energy of a standing wave generated when a violin string plucked is determined in part by the length and tension of its strings.

Similarly the energy of the resonant system the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 04 2007 associated with atom orbital would be defined by the “length” or circumference of the three-dimensional volume it is occupying and the tension on the space it is occupying.

Therefore the physicality of “n” or the principal quantum number would be defined by the fundamental vibrational energy of three-dimensional space that article associated with the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass.

The circumference of its orbital would correspond to length of the individual strings on a violin while the tension on its spatial components would be created by the electrical attraction of the positive charge of the proton.

Therefore the integer representing the first quantum number would correspond to the physical length associated with the wavelength of its fundamental resonant frequency of the volume of electrons in orbit.

However, classical mechanics tells us that each environment has a unique fundamental resonant frequency which is not shared by others.

Additionally it also tells us why in terms of the physical properties of space-time an electron cannot fall into the nucleus is because, as was shown in that article all energy is contained in four dimensional resonant systems. In other words the energy released by an electron “falling” into it would have to manifest itself in terms of a resonate system. Since the fundamental or lowest frequency available for a stable resonate system in either four dimensional space-time or four spatial dimension corresponds to the energy of an electron it becomes one of the fundamental energy units of the universe.

This defines physicality of the environment associated with the first quantum number and why it is unique for each subdivision of electron orbitals. Additionally observations tell us that resonance can only occur in an environment that contains an integral or half multiples of the wavelength associated with its resonant frequency and that the energy content of its harmonics are always greater than those of its fundamental resonate energy.

This allows one to derive the physicality of the second “â„“” or azimuth quantum number in terms of how many harmonics of the fundament frequency a given orbital can support. 

In the case of a violin the number of harmonics a given string can support is in part determined by its length.   As the length increase so does the number of harmonics because its greater length can support a wider verity of frequencies and wavelengths.  However, as mentioned earlier each additional harmonic requires more energy than the one before it.  Therefore there is a limit to the number of harmonics that a violin string can support which is determined in part by its length.

Similarly each quantum orbital can only support harmonics of their fundamental frequency that will “fit” with the circumference of the volume it occupies.

For example the first harmonic of the 1s orbital would have energy that would be greater than that of the first because as mentioned earlier the energy associated with a harmonic of a resonant system is always greater than that of its fundamental frequency.  Therefore it would not “fit” into the volume of space enclosed by the 1s orbital because of its relatively high energy content.  Therefore second quantum number of the first orbital will be is 0. 

However it also defines why in terms of classical wave mechanics the number of suborbital associated with the second quantum number increases as one move outward from the nucleus because a larger number of harmonics will be able to “fit” with the circumference of the orbitals as they increase is size.

This also shows that the reason the orbitals are filled in the order 1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 3d, 4s, 4p, 4d, 4f, 5s is because the energy of the 3d or second harmonic of the third orbital is higher in energy than the energy of the fundamental resonant frequency of the 4th orbital.  In other words classical wave mechanics tells us the energy of the harmonics of the higher quantum orbitals may be less than that of the energy of the fundamental frequency of preceding one so their harmonics would “fit” into circumference of the lower orbitals

The third or Magnetic (m) quantum number physical defines how the energy associated with each harmonic in each quantum orbital is physically oriented with respect to axis of three-dimensional space.

For example it tells us that the individual energies of 3 “p” orbitals are physically distributed along each of the three axis of three-dimensional space.

The physicality of the fourth quantum or spin number has nothing to do with the resonant properties of space however as was shown in the article “Pauliâ€s Exclusion Principal: a classical interpretation” Feb. 15, 2012 one can derive its physicality by extrapolating the laws of a three-dimensional environment to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

That article it was shown all forms of energy including the angular momentum of particles can be defined in terms of a displacement in a “surface* of three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

In three-dimensional space one can use the right hand rule to define the direction of the angular momentum of charged particles.  Similarly the direction of that displacement with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension can be understood in term of the right hand rule.  In other words the angular momentum or energy of an electron with a positive spin would be directed “upward” with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension while one with a negative spin would be associated with a “downwardly” directed one.
Therefore one can define the physically of the fourth or spin quantum number in terms of the direction a “surface” of three-dimensional space is displaced with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.  For example if one defines energy of an electron with a spin of -1/2 in terms of a downward directed displacement one would define a +1/2 spin as an upwardly directed one.

The physical reason for Pauli’s exclusion principal or why only two electrons can occupy a quantum orbital and why they must have slightly different energies can also be derived by extrapolating the observations of a classical three-dimensional environment to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

For example there a two ways to fill a bucket.  One is by pushing it down and allowing the water to flow over its edge or by using a cup to raise it to the level of the buckets rim.

Similarly there would be two ways fill an atomic orbital according to the concepts presented in that article.  One would be by creating a downward displacement on the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* to the energy level associated with the electron while the other would create an upward displacement in that surface.

However the energy required by each method will not be identical because it requires slightly less energy to fill a bucket by pushing it down below the surface than it would be to fill one that was above it in part because the one above the surface would be at a higher gravitational potential.

Additionally it takes considerable more energy to push two buckets on on top of the other below the surface than it does just one.

Similarly the magnitude of a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension caused by two quantum particles with similar quantum numbers would greater than that caused by a single one.  Therefore, they will repel each other and seek the lower energy state associated with a different quantum number because the magnitude of the force resisting the displacement will be less for them than if they had the same number.

This shows how one can define a physical model for the energy distribution with an atom by extrapolating the deterministic laws of a classical three-dimensional environment to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

However it also allows one to understand why in terms of a physical image the energy distribution within the atom MUST be defined in terms of a non-deterministic probability function.

As mentioned earlier the article “The observer effect in quantum mechanics: a classical explanation” Oct. 4, 2007 showed the particle component of a quantum system is the result of the restricting its wave motion through observation.

Briefly it showed that because of the continuous properties of waves, the energy the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 04 2007 associated with a quantum system it is free to move and therefore be distributed over the entire “surface” of three-dimensional space with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension similar to how a wave generated by a vibrating ball on a surface of a rubber diaphragm would be disturbed over its entire surface.  However to observe it one would have to touch its surface with a probe thereby restricting the wave motion of that surface.

In other words there is a probability that a probe could observe the vibrations of the ball anywhere on that surface with a decreasing probably as one move away from the ball or center of the diaphragm.

Similarly an electron energy which is not being observed would be distributed throughout its entire orbit.

In other words similar to the rubber diaphragm the wave properties of an electron would be distributed throughout the entire volume of its atomic orbital.

However if we decide to restrict or redirect some of its energy by probing or observing it it appears to be at a specific place in space and time because as was shown in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized? the act of observation confines its wave component to specific volume thereby allowing the resonant system that article showed defines a particle’s position.

In other words in an atom an electron’s wave energy is allow freely move or exist within a specific volume however the act of observing where it is in its orbit restricts its movement thereby allowing the resonant system the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?“ associated with a particle to form and appear or be observed in a specific position within that orbital.

However similar to the vibrations in the rubber diaphragm there is a probability that a probe could observe them anywhere in their orbital with a decreasing probably as one move away from the center or focal point of its wave component.

In other words assuming space is composed of four spatial dimensions instead of four dimensional space-time in allows one to form a physical image of probabilistic interactions individual electrons in atoms have with observers and with electrons in other orbitals in terms of the classical laws of probabilities.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey Oâ€Callaghan 2015

The post Quantum energy distribution: a classical interpretation appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

When the Copenhagen interpretation was first introduced Neils Bohr found it was necessary to assume the collapse of wave function to distinguish the quantum from the classical world.  This allowed it to develop without distractions from interpretational worries.  Nevertheless since then that it meaning has be hotly debated because if it is a fundamental properties of nature as many have assumed it would contradict the classical or Newton assumption that the world is deterministic.
However the science of physics is devoted to understanding the physical process responsible for creating the “reality” of our observable environment based on observing the physical interaction of its real not imagined components.

One of the reason it has been so difficult to understand what happens to the position component of a quantum system when it is observed may be because too much attention has been focused on the mathematical aspects of the wave function and not enough on its physical meaning in a space-time environment.  This is made even more difficult because the concept of superposition is defined in terms of the spatial properties of a quantum system instead of its space-time properties.

This suggest one be able to obtain a better understanding of what happens to it if one could view it in terms its spatial instead of it time or space-time properties.

Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he use the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light to define the geometric properties of space-time because it provided a method of converting a unit of time he associated with energy to unit of space associate with position. Additionally because the velocity of light is constant he also defined a one to one quantitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

The fact that one can use Einsteinâ€s equations to qualitatively and quantitatively redefine the curvature in space-time he associated with energy in terms of four *spatial* dimensions is one bases for assuming as was done in the article “Defining energy?” Nov 27, 2007 that all forms of energy can be derived in terms of a spatial displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

However defining the dimensional properties of quantum system in terms of its spatial instead of its time components would allow one to derive the physicality of the wave functioned associated with Schrödingerâ€s equation by extrapolating the observable properties of our reality to the quantum world it describes.

For example the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 showed one can derive its physicality by extrapolating the laws of classical wave mechanics in a three-dimensional environment to a matter wave on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to  a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would occur in one consisting of four spatial dimensions.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give a matter wave the ability to oscillate spatially on a “surface” between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.

These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital.  This would force the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

The oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or “structure” to be established space.

Therefore, these oscillations in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or “structure” in four-dimensional space if one extrapolated them to that environment. 

Classical mechanics tells us the energy of a resonant system can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with it fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency.

Hence, these resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions would be responsible for the discrete quantized energy associated with the quantum mechanical systems.

(In the article “The geometry of quarks” Mar. 15, 2009 the internal structure of quarks, a fundament component of particles was derived in terms of a similar resonant interaction between three and four dimensional space.)

However assuming its energy is result of a displacement in four *spatial* dimension instead of four dimensional space-time as was done in the article “Defining energy?” Nov 27, 2007 allows one to not only derive the physicality of Schrödingerâ€s equation as was just done but also the physical reason why its particle components would be in superpositioned state before an observation is made.

Classical mechanics tell us that because of the continuous properties of waves, the energy the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” associated with a quantum system would be distributed throughout the entire “surface” a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension similar to how the wave generated by a vibrating ball on a surface of a rubber diaphragm are disturbed over its entire surface while the magnitude of the displacement it causes will decrease as one moves away from the point of contact.

However, this means if one extrapolates the mechanics of the rubber diaphragm to a “surface” of three-dimensional space one must assume the oscillations associated with each individual quantum system must be disturbed thought the entire universe while the spatial displacement associated with its energy defined in the in the article “Defining energy?” Nov 27, 2007 would decrease as one moves away from its position.  This means there would be a non-zero probability they could be found anywhere in our three-dimensional environment because, as mentioned earlier the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” shows that a quantum mechanical system is a result of a resonant structure formed by the oscillations on the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Classical Wave Mechanics tells us a resonance would most probably occur on the surface of the rubber sheet were the magnitude of the vibrations is greatest and would diminish as one move away from that point,

Similarly an observer would most probably find a quantum system were the magnitude of the vibrations in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold is greatest and would diminish as one move away from that point. 

However as mentioned earlier this is exactly what is predicted by Quantum mechanics in that one can define a particle’s exact position or momentum only in terms of the probabilistic values associated with vibrations of its wave function

Additionally this tells us that the wave function does not collapse but its energy is redirected towards the observer and as was shown in the article Why is energy/mass quantized? he would record its redirected energy in term of discrete quantized properties associated with a particle.

As mentioned earlier the science of physics is devoted to understanding the physical process responsible for creating the “reality” of our observable environment based on observing the physical interaction of its real not imagined components.

Yet even though we may never be able to directly observe the fourth *spatial* dimension we can verify its existence by observing the effects it has on our observable three-dimensional environment similar to how Einstein was able to conclude that gravity was a result of a curvature in a space time environment.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2015

The post A classical interpretation of the wave function collapse appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

Robert Oerter, on page 83 of his book “The Theory of Almost Everything: The Standard Model, the Unsung Triumph of Modern Physics” said “Quantum mechanics has completely undermined the mechanistic view of the universe, by removing not one but two of its foundations. First, according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, it is impossible, even in principle, to determine the exact position and velocity or momentum of each particle in your body. The best that can be done, even for a single particle, is to determine the quantum state of the particle, which necessarily leaves some uncertainty about its position, velocity or momentum. Second, the laws of physics are not deterministic but probabilistic: given the (quantum) state of your body, only the probabilities of different behaviors could be predicted.”

To a certain extent this is true however the same can be said for our inability to determine the exact position and momentum of many macroscopic objects in our environment.

For example in “reality” we can cannot determine or measure the exact position or momentum of the planets as they obit the sun because we do not have the ability, even with modern computers to calculate the gravitational effects all of the other objects in our universe, such as the planets or stars have on them.  In other words we can only determine their most probably macroscopic positions or momentum based on an incomplete set of initial conditions.  However we do not deny the mechanistic view of planetary science, in part because we can understand or determine the mechanism responsible for why they move the way they do and why we cannot determine their exact position or momentum though observations of the “reality” of our environment.  In others words because we define the measurements of their positions and momentum in terms of the “reality” or the ability to observe the conditions under which they interact we assume that they occupy a deterministic environment.

However the reason we view the quantum world as being non-mechanistic is in part because we cannot observe or understand a mechanism responsible for why the components of its environment interact the way they do.  Therefore we can only base its “reality” on our inability to measure the position or momentum of its components.  In others words we define it only in terms of measurements and not on observations of the conditions of responsible for those measurements.

Yet this is exactly how planetary scientists define the deterministic “reality” of planetary motion because as mentioned earlier, the influence other objects have on them makes it impossible to determine the exact position or momentum of a planet.

Some would say that this is not a valid comparison because we could at least, in theory refine our observations and computing power enough to be able to determine a planets initial conditions precisely enough to predict where it will be in the future.

But that still does not explain why modern science presently assumes that the motion of the planets is mechanistic on a microscopic scale when at the moment is it not.

As mentioned earlier the reason they feel justified in believing that it is, in part because they can define a mechanism in terms of a deterministic “reality” they can observed.

If it was not for this belief they would have to assume that environments the planets occupy fully agree with the non-mechanistic assumptions of quantum mechanics.

However one can define a mechanism in terms of the deterministic “reality” of our observable environment that would explain why the quantum mechanical world appears to be non-deterministic.

For example in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 it was shown it is possible to understand the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass by extrapolating the laws of classical resonance in a deterministic three-dimensional environment to a matter wave on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would be meet by a matter wave in four *spatial* dimensions.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give a matter wave the ability to oscillate spatially on a “surface” between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.

These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital. This would force the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

The oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or “structure” to be established in four *spatial* dimensions.

Classical mechanics tells us the energy of a resonant system can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its resonant or a harmonic of its resonant frequency

Therefore the discrete or quantized energy of resonant systems in a continuous form of energy/mass would be responsible for the discrete quantized quantum mechanical properties of particles.

However, that does not explain how the boundaries of a particleâ€s resonant structure are defined.

In classical physics, a point on the two-dimensional surface of paper is confined to that surface.  However, that surface can oscillate up or down with respect to three-dimensional space.

Similarly an object occupying a volume of three-dimensional space would be confined to it however, it could, similar to the surface of the paper oscillate “up” or “down” with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

The confinement of the “upward” and “downward” oscillations of a three-dimension volume with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension is what defines the geometric boundaries of the “box” containing the resonant system the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” associated with a particle.

In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle asserts that there a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, such as position x and momentum p, can be simultaneously known.

However, as mentioned earlier one can define a mechanistic “reality” for that environment in terms of the geometry of the four *spatial* dimensions because quantum mechanics mathematically defines the position and momentum of a particle in terms of one dimensional point.

Therefore according to the above concepts there would be an uncertainty in determining its exact position because that one dimensional point could be found any within the volume of the three-dimensional “box” mentioned above.

Similarly there would be an uncertainty in measuring its momentum, again because quantum mechanics defines it in terms of the movement of a one dimensional point.  Before one could determine a particle’s momentum one would have to know its exact position in the box at the “end” points were one measured its velocity.  However, as mentioned above that non-dimension point representing a particle could be found anywhere in the box containing the resonant structure that define a particle in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?“  Therefore one could not determine its exact velocity and therefore its momentum because there will always be an uncertainty as to where in the box the non-dimensional point that represents a particle is relative to the dimensions of the “box” when a measurement is taken.

This shows that one can define a deterministic mechanism in terms of the “reality” of our observable environment responsible for the non-deterministic measurements associated with quantum mechanics.

In other words it  define a classical mechanismsf or Heisenberg uncertainty principle or why it is impossible, even in principle, to determine the exact position and velocity of each particle in your body.

As mentioned earlier we can cannot determine or measure the exact position or momentum of the planets as they obit the sun because we do not have the ability even with modern computers to calculate the gravitational effects all of the other objects such planet or stars in our universe have on them.  However we assume that they occupy mechanistic environment because we can define the measurements of their positions and momentum in terms of the “reality” or the ability to observe the conditions under which they interact.

We can and may never be able precisely measure the momentum and position of particle in a quantum environment however if we assume that the above mechanism is valid then one also has to assume that that environment is mechanistic for the same reasons we assume that the motion of the planets is mechanistic.

What should determines if an environment is mechanistic is not the fact that we can precisely measure the position or momentum of its component because if it was we could not consider the motion of the planets mechanistic because presently we cannot.  What determines if an environment is mechanistic is if we can define a valid mechanism in terms of our observable “reality” that can explain and predict why we measure what we do even if we cannot observe all of its components.

If we let our inability to make precise measurements of the position or momentum of the planets or particles define “reality” then we must assume that they do not exist however if we can use our “reality” to define a mechanism responsible for why we cannot precisely make those measurements then must we assume that the environments we are measuring are “real” even though it may be impossible to precisely measure the positions and momentum of their components. 

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2014

The post Should measurement define "reality" appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

However finding a way of conceptually integrating them has proven to be extremely difficult for two reasons

The first is that it is impossible to derive a mechanism to explain and predict the continuous properties of four dimensional space-time in terms of quantum mechanics because something that is discontinuous cannot by definition be continuous. 

However one can derive the them in terms of the continuous properties of space-time because something that is continuous by definition can be divided into smaller units. 

Yet the other reason why it is so difficult is because Quantum mechanics defines its domain in terms of the spatial properties of probabilities while Einstein theories define it in terms of the continuous geometric properties of time.

This suggest we may be able to integrate them if we could find a way defining them in the same terms.   In other words redefining the space-time environment of Relativity in terms of the spatial properties of quantum mechanics or redefine the continuous properties of space-time in terms of the quantum properties of quantum mechanics.

However the only realistic option is to redefine the space-time environment of Relativity in terms of the spatial properties of quantum mechanics because as was mentioned earlier it is impossible to derive a mechanism to explain and predict the continuous properties of four dimensional space-time in terms of quantum mechanics because something that is discontinuous cannot by definition be continuous. 

Fortunately Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he used he used the velocity of light to define its geometric properties of space time because it allows one to convert a unit of time in his space-time universe to an equivalent unit of space in four *spatial* dimensions.  Additionally because the velocity of light is constant means it is possible to defined a one to one correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

In other words by defining the geometric properties of a space-time universe in terms of mass/energy and the constant velocity of light he provided a qualitative and quantitative means of redefining his space-time universe in terms of the geometry of four *spatial* dimensions.

However as mentioned earlier doing so would also allow one to define a physical mechanism responsible for creating a quantum of space-time in terms of the existence of four *spatial* dimensions.

For example the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 showed it is possible to explain the quantum properties of energy/mass by extrapolating the laws of classical resonance in a three-dimensional environment to a matter wave on the continuous “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would be meet by a matter wave in four spatial dimensions.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give a matter wave the ability to oscillate spatially on a continuous “surface” between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.

These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital.  This would force the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

The oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or “structure” to be established in four *spatial* dimensions.

Classical mechanics tells us the energy of a resonant system can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its resonant or a harmonic of its resonant frequency

Therefore the discrete or quantized energy of resonant systems in a continuous four dimensional environment would be responsible for the discrete quantized energy quantum mechanics associated with energy/mass.

However, it does not explain the mechanism responsible for quantizing the space containing energy/mass

In classical physics, a point on the two-dimensional surface of paper is confined to that surface.  However, that surface can oscillate up or down with respect to three-dimensional space. 

Similarly an object occupying a volume of three-dimensional space would be confined to it however, it could, similar to the surface of the paper oscillate “up” or “down” with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

The confinement of the “upward” and “downward” oscillations of a three-dimension volume with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension is responsible for the quantization of four-dimensional space because it would result in the formation of discrete or quantized volumes associated with the observed quantum properties of energy/mass.

In other words defining space in terms of four *spatial* dimensions allows one to conceptually the integrate the discontinuous quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass into the continuous field properties four-dimensional space in terms of a resonant system created by its wave properties.

Physicists should remember it is impossible to derive a mechanism to explain and predict the continuous properties of four dimensional space-time in terms of quantum mechanics because something that is discontinuous cannot by definition be continuous.  However one can understand as was shown above the quantum mechanical properties of space in terms of the continuous properties of space-time because something that is continuous by definition can be divided  into smaller units.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2013

The post A quantum of space-time appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

For example the Copenhagen interpretation tells us that a particle is spread out as a wave over the entire universe and only appears in a specific place when a conscience observer looks at it.  Therefore it assumes the act of measurement or observation creates its physical reality and that of the universe.  However because only conscience human beings can be observers it implies that nothing can exist without them being there to observe them.

Not only is it a bit self centered for humans to assume that they (humans) are the sole arbiters of the physicality of the universe but it is also shows how out of touch with reality those who believe in it are for the simple fact that the is overwhelming scientific evidence that humans physically evolved over a finite period of time.  However, if one assumes that atoms exist only after being observed by a human one must also assume that humans evolved out of something that did not exist.

However one of the reasons many scientist believe this is because they feel it is the only way to resolve the physical conflicts they find between the experimental observations of the microscopic realm of the atom and the “reality” we see in our macroscopic universe.
For example quantum mechanics assumes that all energy/mass is encapsulated in what is called a wave function which collapses into the reality most of us associate with our particle world only when it is observed. 

However as Greene, Brian points out in his book “The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality” (Kindle Locations 3750-3752).

“No one has been able to explain how an experimenter making a measurement (observation) cause a wavefunction to collapse? In fact, does wavefunction collapse really happen, and if it does, what really goes on at the microscopic level? Do any and all measurements cause collapse?

The name give to the inability to define what happens to the wave properties of energy/mass when a measurement or observation is made is called the measurement problem and has given rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics.  Many of these interoperations assume that Schrödinger wave function defines an atom in terms of the linear superposition of its particle and wave states even though actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state.   Additionally experiments tell us that any future evolution must be based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made and not on its history, meaning that the measurement “did something” to the process under examination.   Many believe whatever that “something” may be does cannot be explained in terms of classical theories.

However, it can be shown that one can explain and understand the “something” that happens when a measurement of the wave function is made by extrapolating the theoretical concepts of classical mechanics in a three-dimensional environment to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

In the article “A classical Schrödingerâ€s wave equation” Mar. 15, 2010 it was shown one can derive the physical reality of the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass associated with Schrödinger’s wavefunction by extrapolating observations of classical three-dimensional space to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a three-dimensional environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would occur in one made up of four.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give a matter wave the ability to oscillate spatially on a “surface” between a third and fourth *spatial* dimension thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.

These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital.  This would force the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

However, the oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or “structure” to be established on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold.

Yet classical theories of three-dimensional space tell us the energy of resonant systems can only take on the discontinuous or discreet energies associated with the fundamental or harmonic of their fundamental frequency.

However, these are the similar to the quantum mechanical properties associated with the wavefunction in that it only takes on the discontinuous or discreet energies associated with the formula E=hv where “E” equals the energy of a particle, “h” or Planckâ€s constant would correspond to the energy associated with the fundamental frequency of four *spatial* dimensions and “v” equals the frequency of its wave component.

This shows how one can not only define the physicality of the quantum mechanical properties of Schrödinger wavefunction but also of Planck’s constant by extrapolating the classical laws governing resonant system in a three-dimensional environment to a resonant system formed by a matter wave moving in four *spatial* dimensions. 

However it also gives one the ability to understand why evolution of a quantum system is effected by observation or measurement.

Classical mechanics tells us that one should be able predict the future evolution of a system based on its history.  In other words if one knew every detail of a systems history one could measure its future evolution with complete certainty.  However it also tells us that one must interact with a system and therefore change its history to make a measurement.  Therefore, the laws of classical mechanics tell us that one must base the future evolution of a system on new history created by a measurement. 

Yet this is precisely what we observed in a quantum environment in that the act of measurement creates a new history for a system.  The only difference between a classical and a quantum environment is that in the latter the act of measurement always makes significant change which cannot be ignored in determining the future of the environment. 

However this does not mean that one cannot use the conceptual “reality” defined by classical mechanics to understand the physicality of the quantum world because as mentioned earlier classical mechanics also tells us the act of measurement must affect the future evolution of a system.

The other as of yet unanswered question that Brian Breen brought up in his book involving what happens to the quantum mechanical wave function when a measurement is made can also be found in classical mechanics.

As mentioned the earlier article “A classical Schrödingerâ€s wave equation” showed that one can derive the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass in terms of a resonant structure by physically extrapolating the laws of classical mechanics to wave in a quantum environment.

This tells us that because of the continuous properties of waves, the energy associated with a quantum system would be distributed throughout an extended volume of space similar to how the wave generated by a vibrating ball on a surface of a rubber diaphragm are disturbed over its entire surface while the magnitude of the displacement it causes will decrease as one moves away from the point of contact.

However, this means if one extrapolates the mechanics of the rubber diaphragm to a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold one must assume the oscillations associated with each individual quantum system must be disturbed throughout the entire universe while the displacement created by its wave energy would decrease as one moves away from its position.  This means there would be a non-zero probability they could be found anywhere in our three-dimensional environment because as was shown earlier a quantum mechanical system is a result of a resonant structure formed by wave oscillations which are disturbed throughout space.

Classical Wave Mechanics tells us a resonance would most probably occur on the surface of the rubber sheet were the magnitude of the vibrations is greatest and would diminish as one move away from that point,

Similarly an observer would most probably find a quantum system were the magnitude of the vibrations in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold is greatest and would diminish as one move away from that point. 

However as mentioned earlier this is exactly what is predicted by Quantum mechanics in that one can define a particle’s exact position or momentum only in terms of the probabilistic values associated with vibrations of its wave function

Yet this also means the wave function does not collapse but its evolution is redirected towards the observer.

In other words it answers the question “how an experimenter making a measurement (observation) causes a wave function to collapse” Greene, Brian asked in his book “The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality” by using the laws of classical mechanics to define the quantum environment and “explain ”  show that the act of observation does not cause the collapse of the wavefunction but only redirects its evolution towards the observer.

It should be remember that we are not trying to quantify our quantum experiences but only to explain how and why we experience it the way we do in terms of the “realty” most of us associate with our classical world.

Later Jeff

Copyright 2012 Jeffrey O’Callaghan

The post A Classical Quantum environment appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

However, for the past 50 years brightest minds in the scientist community have been unable to observe the Gravitron or the particle it assumes it responsible for the force of gravity.

Some say this is because it interacts so weakly with matter that modern instruments are not sensitive enough to detect it even with, as mentioned earlier the recent exponential increase in their sensitivity. 
However the reason may be because we have been looking in the wrong direction.

For example in the article ” Linking Gravity with electromagnetism in four *spatial* dimensions”  Dec. 15, 2007 it was shown that one can derive quantum properties of gravitational and electrical forces in terms of a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension in a manner that makes prediction identical to those of General Relativity.

Einstein gave us the ability to derive gravity in terms of a displacement a “surface” of a three dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth spatial dimension when he defined the geometric properties of a space-time universe in terms of the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light because that provided a method of converting the displacement in space-time he associated with gravity to its equivalent displacement in four *spatial* dimensions.  Additionally because the velocity of light is constant he also defined a one to one quantitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

However as that article one also can derive electromagnetism in terms of spatial displacement of a “surface” of a three dimensional space manifold with respect to fourth *spatial* dimension

For example a wave on the two-dimensional surface of water causes a point on that surface to be become displaced or rise above or below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present.  A force will be developed by the differential displacement of the surfaces, which will result in the elevated and depressed portions of the water moving towards or become “attracted” to each other and the surface of the water.

Similarly a matter wave on the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension would cause a point on that “surface” to become displaced or rise above and below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present.

Therefore, classical wave mechanics, if extrapolated to four *spatial* dimensions tells us the force developed by the differential displacements caused by a matter wave moving on a “surface” of three-dimensional space with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension will result in its elevated and depressed portions moving towards or become “attracted” to each other. 

However, it also provides a classical mechanism for understanding why similar charges repel each other because observations of water show that there is a direct relationship between the magnitudes of a displacement in its surface to the magnitude of the force resisting that displacement. 

Similarly the magnitude of a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension caused by two similar charges will be greater than that caused by a single one.  Therefore, similar charges will repel each other because the magnitude of the force resisting the displacement will be greater for two similar charges than it would be for a single charge. 

One can define the causality of electrical component of electromagnetic radiation in terms of the energy associated with its “peaks” and “troughs” that is directed perpendicular to its velocity vector while its magnetic component would be associated with the horizontal force developed by that perpendicular displacement. 

However, Classical Mechanics tells us a horizontal force will be developed by that perpendicular or vertical displacement which will always be 90 degrees out of phase with it.  This force is called magnetism.

This is analogous to how the vertical force pushing up of on mountain also generates a horizontal force, which pulls matter horizontally towards from the apex of that displacement

This cannot be done in terms of four-dimensional space time because a time or a space-time dimension is only observed to move in one direction forward and therefore could not support the bidirectional movement required to create a differential displacement.

However it also provides a method of linking electromagnetic and gravitational forces to their quantum mechanical properties the Standard Model associated with the Gravitron because as the article ” Why is energy/mass quantized? ” Oct. 4, 2007 showed one can derive them by extrapolating the laws of classical resonance in a three-dimensional environment to a matter wave moving on a “surface” of a three dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension. 

Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would be meet by a matter wave in an environment consisting of four *spatial* dimensions. 

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give a matter wave the ability to oscillate spatially on a “surface” between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.

These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital.  This would force the “surface” of a three-dimensional space (the substance) to oscillate with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension at the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

The oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or “structure” to be established in four *spatial* dimensions.

Observations of a three-dimensional environment tell us that the energy of a resonant system can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with the fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental resonant

Similarly the energy of a resonant system in an environment consisting of four *spatial* dimensional environment could only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with the fundamental or a harmonic of a resonant system in that environment. 

These resonant systems are responsible for the quantum mechanical properties the energy/mass.

However the above theoretical model shows that the quantum unit of both gravity or the Gravitron and electromagnetism; the photon share a common origin in a resonant system and therefore would interact with each other. This suggests that instead of looking for gravitons effect on matter one would be more likely to find it by observe the random effects it would have on the movement of extremely light particles such as low frequency photons.

This random effect would be amplified by the distance traveled so with our advanced technologies if it exists we should be able to observe a difference between photons with nearby verse ones with far away origins.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2012

The post Finally, someone found a physical link between the graviton and the photon appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

However, this may be because the wavefunction defines existence in terms of the spatial properties of matter while Einstein defines it terms of its time or space-time properties.

This suggests that one may be able to explain what happens to the wave function when a measurement is made if one could convert or transpose time in Einstein’s space-time universe to its spatial equivalent in four *spatial* dimensions.
Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he use the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light to define the geometric properties of space-time because it provided a method of converting a unit of time in space-time to unit of space in four spatial dimensions. Additionally because the velocity of light is constant he also defined a one to one quantitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

For example the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?

” Oct. 4, 2007 showed one can physical derive the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass by extrapolating the laws of classical wave mechanics in a three-dimensional environment to a matter wave on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to  a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would occur in one consisting of four spatial dimensions.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give a matter wave the ability to oscillate spatially on a “surface” between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.

These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital.  This would force the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

The oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or “structure” to be established space.

Therefore, these oscillations in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or “structure” in four-dimensional space if one extrapolated them to that environment. 

Classical mechanics tells us the energy of a resonant system can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency.

Hence, these resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions would be responsible for the discrete quantized energy associated with the quantum mechanical systems.

(In the article “The geometry of quarks” Mar. 15, 2009  the internal structure of quarks, a fundament component of particles was derived in terms of a resonant interaction between a continuous energy/mass component of space and the geometry of four *spatial* dimensions)

However classical mechanics tell us that because of the continuous properties of waves the energy the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” associated with a quantum system would be distributed throughout the entire “surface” a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

For example putting a vibrating or oscillating ball on rubber diaphragm will create a displacement which will be disturbed over its entire surface while the magnitude of that displacement will decrease as one moves away from the point of contact.

However, this means if one extrapolates the mechanics of the rubber diaphragm to a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold one must assume the oscillations associated with each individual quantum system must be disturbed thought the entire universe while spatial displacement associated with its energy defined in the in the article “Defining energy?” Nov 27, 2007 would decrease as one move away from its position.  This means there would be a non-zero probability they could be found anywhere in our three-dimensional environment because, as mentioned earlier the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” shown a quantum mechanical system is a result of a resonant structure formed on the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Yet Classical Wave Mechanics also tells us a resonance would most probably occur on the surface of the rubber sheet were the magnitude of the vibrations is greatest and would diminish as one move away from that point,

Similarly an observer would most probably find a quantum system were the magnitude of the vibrations in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold is greatest and would diminish as one move away from that point. 

However as mentioned earlier this is exactly what is predicted by Quantum mechanics in that one can define a particle’s exact position or momentum only in terms of the probabilistic values associated with its wave function.

Yet it also explains in terms of the observable reality of our environment what happens to the wave function when a measurement is made because to make one energy must be redirected towards the measurement instrument.  In other words the wave function does not collapse but is physically redirected towards the observing instrument at the point of observation and would continue on that path until another observation is made.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2012

The post Solving the Measurement Problem appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

Presently it is defined in the terminology of quantum mechanics as when the wave function for two identical fermions is anti-symmetric with respect to exchange of the particles. In other words it changes sign if the space and spin co-ordinates of any two particles are interchanged.

However it may be possible to derive a mechanism for this in terms of the laws of causality in a space-time or classical environment.

There are four quantum states or numbers.
The first, designated by the letter “n”, and it describes the electron shell, or energy level.  Its value ranges from 1 to “n”, where “n” is the shell containing the outermost electron of that atom.  The second, or â„“ quantum number, describes the subshell (0 = s orbital, 1 = p orbital, 2 = d orbital, 3 = f orbital, etc.).  Its value can range from 0 to n − 1.  The third, or m_â„“, describes the specific orbital within a subshell.  Finally fourth, quantum number with the designator “s” describes the spin of the electron within that orbital.  An electron can have a spin of ±½; m_s will be either, corresponding with “spin” and “opposite spin.”  Each electron in any individual orbital must have different spins; therefore, an orbital never contains more than two electrons.

Pauli’s exclusion principle is considered one of the most important principles in physics because if electrons could occupy the same quantum state they would all congregate in a single point corresponding to the lowest-energy state.  If this occurred atoms would have no volume.  However, Pauli’s exclusion principle tells us that each additional electron added to an atom must occupy higher energy level with respect to the lower-energy electrons the atom originally contained.  Therefore, they occupy an extended volume rather than a volume less one dimensional point.

As mentioned earlier it may be possible to derive a mechanism for this in terms of the laws of causality in a space-time or classical environment.

However because these quantum states address the spatial not the time components of electron orbitals we must first convert Einstein’s space-time geometry which define their energy in terms of time to one that define it in terms of their spatial properties to

He gave us the ability to do this when he defined the geometric properties of a space-time universe in terms of the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light because that provided a method of converting the displacement in space-time he associated with energy to its equivalent displacement in four *spatial* dimensions.  Additionally because the velocity of light is constant he also defined a one to one quantitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

One of the advantage to doing this is that it allows one as done in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 to understand the physicality of quantum properties energy/mass by extrapolating the laws of classical wave mechanics in a three-dimensional environment to a matter wave on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to  a fourth *spatial* dimension.

There are four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical Newtonian environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give the “surface” of three-dimensional space (the substance) the ability to oscillate spatially between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.

These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital.  This would force the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

Therefore, these bi-directional oscillations in a “surface” of a three dimensional space would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or “structure” in space.

Observations of a three-dimensional environment show the energy associated with resonant system can only take on the incremental or discreet values associated with a fundamental or a harmonic of the fundamental frequency of its environment.

Similarly the energy associated with resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions could only take on the incremental or discreet values associated a fundamental or a harmonic of the fundamental frequency of its environment.

These resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions are responsible for the incremental or discreet energies associated with quantum mechanical systems.

Additionally it also tells us why in terms of the physical properties four dimensional space-time or four *spatial* dimensions an electron cannot fall into the nucleus is because, as was shown in that article all energy is contained in four dimensional resonant systems. In other words the energy released by an electron “falling” into it would have to manifest itself in terms of a resonate system. Since the fundamental or lowest frequency available for a stable resonate system in either four dimensional space-time or four spatial dimension corresponds to the energy of an electron it becomes one of the fundamental energy units of the universe.

However it is also possible to explain in by extrapolating the laws of classical physics to a fourth spatial dimension why no two electrons can occupy the same state at the same time.

For example the article “Defining potential and kinetic energy?” showed all forms of energy including the angular momentum of particles can be defined in terms of the direction of a displacement in a “surface* of three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension. 
In three-dimensional space the orientation of the angular momentum of a particle is determined by the right hand rule which says that its angular momentum of a counter clockwise spin would be directed “upward” with respect to the two-dimensional plane in which it is spinning while one with a clockwise spin would be “downwardly” directed. 

Therefore one can derive the fourth or spin quantum number in terms of the direction a “surface” of three-dimensional space is displaced with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.  For example if one defines energy of an electron with a spin of -1/2 in terms of a downward directed displacement one would define a +1/2 spin as an upwardly directed one.

Using this concept one can theoretical derive Pauli’s Exclusion Principle or the reason why only two particle of opposite spins can occupy a quantum orbital by extrapolating the laws of a three-dimensional environment  to a fourth *spatial* dimension

In three-dimensional space the frequency or energy of a resonant system is defined by the vibrating medium and the boundaries of its environment.

For example the resonant frequency or energy of a stationary or standing wave generated when a violin string plucked is determined by its shape of the instrument sounding box and the length of its strings.

Similarly the resonant system that defines energy of atomic orbitals defined in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” would be defined by the size and shape of its orbital.

This means that atomic orbital will have a unique energy of the standing wave associated with its resonant frequency.

The reason no two identical fermions such as electrons can fill the same energy level or have the same four quantum numbers simultaneously can be understood comparing how those quantum numbers or orbitals is filled to the filling of a bucket of water.

There a two ways to fill a bucket.  One is by pushing it down and allowing the water to flow over its edge or by using a cup to raise it to the level of the buckets rim.

Similarly there would be two ways fill an atomic orbital according to the concepts presented in the article “Defining potential and kinetic energy?“.  One would be by forcing the “surface” of three-dimensional space “downward” with respect to a fourth *spatial* while the other would be raise it up to the energy level associated with an electron in that orbital.

However the energy required by each method will not be identical for the same reason that it requires slightly less energy to fill a bucket of water by pushing it down below its surface than using a cup to fill it because the one above the surface is at a higher gravitational potential

This explains why two elections in the same atomic orbital can have different quantum numbers.

However it also explains why no two quantum particles can have the same quantum number because observations of water show that there is a direct relationship between the magnitudes of a displacement in its surface to the magnitude of the energy resisting that displacement. 

Similarly the magnitude of a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension caused by two quantum particles with similar quantum numbers would greater than that caused by a single one.  Therefore, two electrons that occupy the same orbital cannot have the same energy because the energy associated with that displacement would be greater that associated with a different one. Therefore it will seek the lower energy state associated with a different quantum number.

This shows how one can derive of Pauli’s exclusion principle or the fact that no two identical fermions such as electrons can have the same four quantum numbers simultaneously by extrapolating the laws of classical physics in a three-dimensional environment to a four *spatial* dimension.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2012

The post Pauli’s Exclusion Principal: a classical interpretation appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

One is that it would allow one to understand why a proton and an election have different masses even though the absolute magnitude of their charge is the same in terms of the laws of classical three-dimensional space.
In the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 it was showed one can derive its quantum mechanical properties by extrapolating the laws of classical resonance in a three-dimensional environment to a matter wave in a continuous non-quantized field of energy/mass moving on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

(Louis de Broglie was the first to predict the existence of a continuous field of energy/mass when he theorized that all particles had a wave component.  His theories were confirmed by the discovery of electron diffraction by crystals in 1927 by Davisson and Germer.)

Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical three-dimensional environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would occur in one consisting of four *spatial* dimensions.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give a matter wave the ability to oscillate spatially on a “surface” between a third and fourth *spatial* dimension thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.

These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital.  This would force the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

However, the oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or “structure” to be established in a continuous field of energy/mass. 

Classical mechanics tells us the energy of a resonant system can only take on the discrete quantized values associated with its resonant or a harmonic of its resonant frequency.

The article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” showed why these resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions are responsible for the discrete quantized energies associated with protons and electrons.

However, one can also use the above concept of four *spatial* dimensions to understand the physical boundaries of a proton and electron.  

In classical physics, a point on the two-dimensional surface of paper is confined to that surface.  However, that surface can oscillate up or down with respect to three-dimensional space. 

Similarly an object occupying a volume of three-dimensional space would be confined to it however, it could, similar to the surface of the paper oscillate “up” or “down” with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

The confinement of the “upward” and “downward” oscillations of a three-dimension volume with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension is what defines the spatial boundaries associated with a particle in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?“

(The internal structure of quarks, a fundament component of particles was derived in the article “The geometry of quarks” Mar. 15, 2009 in terms of an interaction between a continuous energy/mass component of space and the geometry of four *spatial* dimensions.)

Meanwhile in the article “The reality of the fourth *spatial* dimension” Dec. 1, 2010 it was shown that one can derive all forms of energy including gravity in terms of a displacement or curvature in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

This curvature is analogous to the space-time curvature “The General Theory of Relativity” hypothesized is responsible for gravitational energy.

One advantage, as will be shown below to defining the universe in terms of four *spatial* dimensions is that allows for a bidirectional spatial movement of a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold whereas defining it in terms of four dimensional space-time does not.  This is because one can move in two directions up or down, forwards or backwards in a spatial dimension but in only one direction, forward in a time dimension.

For example in the article “Electromagnetism in four *spatial* dimensions” Sept. 27, 2007 showed one can derive the polarity and absolute magnitude of the charge on a proton and electron in terms of a bidirectional displacement of a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

It derived the positive charge of a proton in terms of a “downward” displacement  in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.  While the negative the charge of an electron will be derived in terms of oppositely directed “upward” displacement in that surface.

One can understand how these displacements would define their electrical properties by extrapolating the laws of classical mechanics of displacements in water to it.

Classical mechanics tell us that if one lifts a bucket full of water or pushes down on an empty one a force will be developed that will cause the bucket raised above or the one that was pushed down below its surface to move or become “attracted” to its surface.

Similarly if one lifts or pushed down on a “surface” of three-dimensional space manifold a force will be developed that will cause the raised or depressed regions to become attracted to its surface.

Therefore, one could derive why the unlike charges attract each other in terms of a classical mechanism if one assumes that they are a result oppositely directed of a displacement  in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension. 

Additional classical mechanics also tells us there is a direct relationship between the magnitudes of a displacement in the surface of water to the magnitude of the energy resisting that displacement.

For example the force resisting the further displacement of an empty bucket in water is directly related to the depth of that displacement.

This defines why like charges repel each other because the displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold caused by two similar charges will be greater than that caused by a single one.  Therefore, similar charges will repel each other because the magnitude of the energy resisting the displacement will be greater for two identical charges than it would be for a single charge.

The mechanism responsible for generating this movement was defined in the article “The reality of the fourth *spatial* dimension” were it was shown when mass is converted to energy or energy to mass, the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold either “expands” or “contracts” with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.  This would result in the movement of that “surface” respect to it.

The effects these movements have on the density of continuous energy/mass component of the resonant systems that defined the quantum mechanical properties of a proton and electron in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” are analogous to the effects high and low pressure areas in the earth’s atmosphere have on density of air molecules.

In a high-pressure area, the energy of air molecules is directed downwards towards the surface of the earth.  This results in the density of the air molecules at the apex of a high-pressure area to be greater than their density in the volume of air adjacent to it.

Conversely, in a low-pressure area the energy of the air molecules is directed upward away from the surface of the earth which results in their density at the apex of a low-pressure area to be less than the density of the air molecules in the volume of air adjacent to it.

A similar effect would occur in space with respect to the density of their continuous energy/mass component

In a dimensional “high-energy volume” associated with the positive charge of a proton, the energy of the continuous energy/mass component of space would be directed “downward” with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension, towards the “surface” of a three-dimension space manifold.  This results in its density in the resonant system of a proton to be greater relative to its density in the volume adjacent to it.

This is analogous to how the air molecules at the apex of a high-pressure area in the earth’s atmosphere would be denser than the air molecules in the volume of air adjacent to the apex of a high-pressure area.

Conversely in a dimensional “low-energy volume” associated with the negative charge of an electron, the energy of the continuous energy/mass component of space would be directed “upward” with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension, away from the “surface” of a three-dimension space manifold.  This results in its density in the resonant system of an electron to be less relative to its density in the volume adjacent to it.

Therefore, the density of the continuous energy/mass component of the resonant system of a proton will be greater than that of an electron even though the absolute magnitude electrical energy or charge is the same.

This is analogous to why the density of air molecules in a high-pressure area is greater that in a low-pressure area even though the magnitude of their energy is same but oppositely directed.

In the article “Gravity and electromagnetism linked in four *spatial* dimensions” Dec 14, 2007 it was shown that the mass of a particle or object is directly related to the density or concentration of the continuous field of energy/mass contained in the volume of a particle or object.

Therefore because the density, as mentioned earlier of the continuous non-quantized field of energy/mass is greater in a proton than that of an electron its mass will also be greater than that of an electron.

This shows that one of the theoretical advantages to define the space in terms of a continuous field of energy/mass and four *spatial* dimensions instead of four dimensional space time is that it would allow one to understand why the relative mass of a proton is greater than that of an electron even though the absolute magnitude of their charge is the same by extrapolating the laws of a classical environment to four *spatial* dimensions.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2011

The post The relative masses of a proton and electron appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

If so one should be able to derive the strong force in those terms.

The strong force, also known as the strong interaction, is the strongest force in the universe, 10³⁸ times stronger than gravity and 100 times stronger than the electromagnetic force.  However, it is only effective on length-scales of the atomic nucleus and drops rapidly off as the distance from the nucleus increases.

Earlier in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 it was shown that one can derive the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass by extrapolating the laws of classical resonance in a three-dimensional environment to a matter wave on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
(Louis de Broglie was the first to predict the existence of a matter wave when he theorized that all particles have a wave component.  His theories were confirmed by the discovery of electron diffraction by crystals in 1927 by Davisson and Germer.)

Briefly it was shown the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would be meet by a matter wave in an environment consisting of four *spatial* dimensions.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give a matter wave the ability to oscillate spatially on a “surface” between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.

These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital.  This would force the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

The oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or “structure” to be established in four *spatial* dimensions.

These resonant systems are responsible for the quantum mechanical properties energy/mass.

Later in the article “The geometry of quarks” Mar. 15, 2009 it was shown that one can understand why a particle is made up of three quarks of different “colors” again by extrapolating the geometric of three-dimensional space to a fourth while the article “Embedded dimensions” Oct. 22. 2007 showed it is possible to define all forms of energy including electrical in terms of a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Using the concepts developed in those articles one derive the mechanism responsible for why observe of particles are made up of distinct components called quarks of which there are six types, the UP/Down, Charm/Strange and Top/Bottom.  The Up, Charm and Top have a fractional charge of 2/3.  The Down, Strange and Bottom have a fractional charge of -1/3.  Scientists have also determined that quarks can take on one of three different configurations they have designated by the colors red, blue, and green.

The explanation is based in part on the fact that we as three-dimensional beings can only observe three of the four *spatial* dimensions.  Therefore, the energy associated with a displacement in its “surface” with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension will be observed by us as being directed along that “surface”.  However, because two of the three-dimensions we can observe are parallel to that surface we will observe it to have 2/3 of the total energy associated with that displacement and we will observe the other 1/3 as being directed along the signal dimension that is perpendicular to that surface.

This means the 2/3 fractional charge of the Up, Charm and Top may be related to the energy directed along a “surface” of a displaced three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a four *spatial* dimension while the -1/3 charge of The Down, Strange and Bottom may be associated with the energy that is directed perpendicular to that “surface”.

The reason why quarks come in three configurations or colors with a fractional charge of 1/3 or 2/3 may be because, as was shown in the article “Embedded dimensions” there are three ways the individual axis of three-dimensional space can be oriented with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.  Therefore, the configuration or “colors” of each quark may be related to how its energy is distributed in three-dimensional space with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

However, it also explains why it takes three quarks of different “colors” to form a particle because, as mentioned earlier one can define a particle in terms of a resonant system on a “surface” a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.  If the colors of each quark represent the central axis associated with its charge then to form a stable resonate system would require three quarks that have different central axis to balance its energy with respect to the axes of three-dimensional space.  A particle could not exist if two quarks have the same central axis or color because it would cause an energy imbalance along that axis.  Therefore, a particle consisting of anything but quarks of three different colors would not be stable.

A proton contains two up Quarks with a +2/3 charge and one down quark with a -1/3 charge.  This tells us because they are stable that the resonant interaction of their geometries contains more energy that the electrical repulsive energy associated with their positive charge.

It is this excess resonant binding energy associated with their dimensional properties defines the causality of the strong force and the stability of a nucleus.

However, its components or protons and neutrons must be physically close enough for them to share this excess energy to create a stable one.

The sharing of this excess binding energy is also responsible for the creation of neutrons because geometrically it takes less energy for a volume to contain the two up quarks and two down quarks of a proton and neutron instead of four up quarks and two down quarks of two protons. In other words their electrical repulsive energy associated with the quarks is cut in half when the volume contains a proton and neutron instead of two protons and therefore energy/mass component of that volume will be in the lowest energy state possible.

However, the addition of a neutron to a nucleus adds the excess binding energy associated with its resonant system without the repulsive effects associated with of the positive charge of a proton.

Therefore, the existence of neutrons in a nucleus allows for creation of larger ones consisting of multiple positively charged protons because they add the binding energy associated with their resonant system without adding any repulsive electrical charge.

Yet this indicates that the binding energy of the strong force would be related to the size of the nucleus after a certain atomic weight is reached a nucleus will become physically too large for the individual resonant “structures” associated with the protons and neutron to uniformly share the energy require to maintain its structure.  This will result in that nucleus expelling the energy/mass required to reduce its physical size to a point where a stable nucleonic structure can be maintained.  Therefore, any nucleus that is physically larger than this critical value will be radioactive.

Additionally, the nucleus of atoms that have an atomic weight less than the critical value would increase its weight and size by “absorbing” energy/mass from an external source.  This will result in increasing the size and atomic number of that nucleus.

This indicates that the effectiveness of the strong nuclear force in absorbing or emitting energy/mass would only be effective on length-scales of the atomic nucleus and would drop rapidly off as the distance from the nucleus increases.

This shows how one can derive mechanism responsible for the strong nuclear force by extrapolating the classical laws governing resonance in a three-dimensional environment to one made up of four.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2011

The post The Strong force in four *spatial* dimensions appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.